We need not attempt to be so precise: for us it is enough that _the representation of Krishna as the Atman belongs to the third stage of the growth of the Epic_. Parallel with this third stage is the final redaction of _Manu_.[47] The philosophic standpoint of these two great works is practically the same, being now the _Sānkhya-Yoga_, now a mixture of Sānkhya, Yoga and Vedantic elements.[48] But the main thing to notice is that in these books we are already in modern Hinduism. Turning from the Vedas to them we find ourselves in an altogether new world. There are many new gods; most of the old divinities have fallen to subordinate places. New customs, new names and ideas are found everywhere. The language too has changed: new words, new expressions and new forms occur in plenty; old words occur in new senses; while many others have disappeared.[49] * * * * * Let us now turn to the _Gītā_. What is its place in this long succession? Clearly it is posterior, not only to our first, but also to our second group of Upanishads. For it echoes the _Katha_, the _Svetāsvatara_, and several of the others repeatedly;[50] its versification is decidedly later in character;[51] the doctrines of Grace and of _Bhakti_, which are found in these Upanishads only in germ, are fully developed in the _Gītā_;[52] while the whole theory of Krishna is a fresh growth. The _Gītā_ may also be shewn to belong to the same age as the Atharvan Upanishads. It has in common with them (_a_) the identification of Krishna and Vishnu with the _Atman_, (_b_) the doctrine of Avatārs,[53] (_c_) the doctrines of Grace and _Bhakti_, (_d_) the Sānkhya-Yoga.